After the crew of the Enterprise find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization, Captain Kirk leads a manhunt to a war-zone world to capture a one-man weapon of mass destruction.
When the USS Enterprise crew is called back home, they find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization has detonated the fleet and everything it stands for, leaving our world in a state of crisis. With a personal score to settle, Captain Kirk leads a manhunt to a war-zone world to capture a one-man weapon of mass destruction. As our space heroes are propelled into an epic chess game of life and death, love will be challenged, friendships will be torn apart, and sacrifices must be made for the only family Kirk has left: his crew.Written by
Like the previous film, this one also contains a reference to Nurse Chapel of the original series (played by Majel Barrett). Interestingly, this callback breaks continuity with Star Trek (2009), as in that film, McCoy is heard addressing a "Nurse Chapel" (who replies from off-screen), whereas in this one, we get the impression that Christine Chapel became a nurse following an encounter with Kirk in the interim between the two films (since Kirk and Uhura did not know each other before the previous film, the reference to a common acquaintance is unlikely to refer to someone from before that point in time). See more »
While both ships still have power, they are shown to be in a stationary position over the Moon, as the Moon is shown in separate scenes many minutes apart. Once the Enterprise is further damaged and loses power, it shouldn't fall towards the Earth, as it will still have the same orbital speed as the Moon. If it should crash into anything, it should crash into the Moon, as it is clearly not in orbit, as the ships remain in the same location relative to surface features. See more »
Completely misses the tone of the enlightened future that Roddenberry envisioned...
So it seems JJ Abrams has traded in too many lens flares for too many closeups. The working title of Star Trek Into Darkness could probably have been "Chris Pine's Facial Pores". Seriously JJ - there is such a thing as long and middle shots too you know, and what's more - if you use them - when you *do* use a closeup, it has more dramatic effect, just sayin'...
Anyway, directorial style flaws aside, my big gripe with STID is that it's "just another" sci-fi movie. What always set Trek apart was that Roddenberry created an enlightened future, a refreshing change of pace to most sci-fi, and the conflict therefore had to come from cleverer places. But with this reboot every character is constantly bickering, I frankly left the theater with a headache as if I'd just been to a teenage kids birthday party. I can get bickering, and grit, and violence from *any* sci-fi feature, and sadly now it seems like Trek has followed suit and lost its original edge. It's not until the very final minute where a little bit of the original Trek feel is re-established, but for me that was far too little, far too late.
There's some giant plot holes too, if you're actually thinking about what's going on. It seems like Abrams hoped that if he put enough glitz and dazzle on the screen, most people would entirely miss the fact that they are there. I guess his gamble was correct, since the film is currently standing at an 8.4 IMDb score.
It's not all bad. Benedict Cumberbatch is an incredible, intense villain and the film is worth seeing for his performance alone. And as with the first, the rest of the cast is exceptional. There's nothing wrong with the acting, music, or look of this film... just a lot wrong with the script and the tone of the whole thing. If you're not a Star Trek fan, you'll likely enjoy it... it's big, frenetic, popcorn munching silliness. But if you are a Trek fan, particularly of the quieter explorations of the human condition that TNG did so well, then you might be pretty disappointed.
168 of 280 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this